[2005] UGCommC 47

[2005] UGCommC 47

The court held that Rule 39(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules is the applicable provision for applications for leave to appeal, requiring such applications to be made within 14 days of the decision. The application in question was filed more than 14 days after the decision, making it time-barred. The court further...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 47
Parties
Applicant: East African Development Bank; Respondent: Receiver of Ranch on the Lake Limited; Respondent: Development Finance Company Uganda Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
24 August 2005
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 537 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Time Limits for Appeal, Receivership, Court of Appeal Rules
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Time Limits for Appeal Receivership Court of Appeal Rules

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East African Development Bank

Applicant

Receiver of Ranch on the Lake Limited

Respondent

Development Finance Company Uganda Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time period under the applicable rules.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for leave to appeal when the application is out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 39(2)(a) of the Court of Appeal Rules is the applicable provision for applications for leave to appeal, requiring such applications to be made within 14 days of the decision. The application in question was filed more than 14 days after the decision, making it time-barred. The court further held that the power to extend time for filing an appeal under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act lies with the appellate court, not the High Court. The applicant's argument that the High Court could disregard the 14-day rule was rejected, as the High Court is bound to follow the rules of the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed as being out of time.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as time-barred.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of this application.